How can I use the RAD way productively (reusing code). Any
samples, existing libraries, basic
crud generators?
How can I design the OOP way? Which
design patterns to use for
connection, abstracting different
engines/db access layers
(bde-dbexpress-ado), basic CRUD
operations.
I have my own Delphi/MySQL framework that lets me add 'new screens' very rapidly. I won't share it, but I can describe the approach I take:
I use a tabbed interface with a TFrame based hierarchy. I create a tab and link a TFrame into it.
I take care of all the crud plumbing, and concurrency controls using a standard mysql stored procedure implementation. CustomerSEL, CustomerGET, CustomerUPD, CustomerDEL, etc...
My main form essentially contains navbar panel and a panel containing TPageControl
An example of the classes in my hierarchy
TFrame
TMFrame - my derivation, with interface implementations capturing OnShow, OnHide, and some other particulars
--TWebBrowserFrame
--TDataAwareFrame
--TObjectEditFrame
--TCustomerEditFrame
--TOrderEditFrame
etc...
--TObjectListFrame
--TCustomerListFrame
etc...
and some dialogs..
TDialog
TMDialog
--TDataAwareDialog
--TObjectEditDialog
-- TContactEditDialog
etc..
--TObjectSelectDialog
--TContactSelectDialog
etc...
When I add a new object to manage, it could be a new attribute of customers, let's say we want to track which vehicles a customer owns.
create table CustomerVehicles
I run my special sproc generator that creates my SEL, GET, UPD, DEL
test those...
Derive from the base classes I mentioned above, drop some controls. Add a tab to the TCustomerEdit.
Delphi has always the Dataset as the abstract layer, expose this to your GUI via DataSources. Add the dataset to the customer data module, and "register it". My own custom function in my derived datamodule class, TMDataModule
Security control is similarly taken care of in the framework.. I 'Register' components that require a security flag to be visible or enabled.
I can usually add a new object, build the sprocs, add the maintenance screens within an hour.
Of course, that is usually just the start, usually when you add something, you use it for more than tracking. If this a garage application, we want to add the vehicle the customer brought into the garage, id it so we can track the history. But even so, it is fast.
I have tried subcontracting to younger guys using 'newer development tools', and they never seem to believe me when I say I can do this all ten times faster with Delphi! I can do in two hours bug-free what it seems to take them two days and they still have bugs...
DO - Be careful planning your VFI! As someone mentioned, if you want to change the name of a component on one of your parent classes, be prepared for trouble. You will need to open and 'edit' each child in the hierarchy, even if you clean DCU you can still have some DFM hell. I can assure you in 2006 this is still a problem.
DON'T create one monster datamodule
DO take your time in the upfront design, refactoring after you have created a ton of dependents can be a fun challenge, but a nightmare when you have to get something new working quickly!
Be very careful if you use the „put every DB objects into one big data module” (or "few big datamodules" in huge applications) approach. This can make your project having data module so big, that you will have to use HD monitor to see all TXDataset on this datamodule
Bottom line: switch to using specialized classes for business logic instead of big global data modules. Use global data modules with logic ONLY in very small projects.
Well, I strongly suggest you to use Actions (TActionList) when designing your user interface. There are many predefined actions including Next/Prev/Insert/Delete/Edit/Update operations that can be performed on datasets, so it is a good practice to use these actions and link them to buttons/menus on your forms. This prevents repeated code for UI logic.
There is no need for a CRUD generator for Delphi!! Add TDataSource, TDBGrid and TActionList to a form, add predefined data source actions to the action list, link those actions to buttons or menus, and you are done!
For large applications, I use the tiopf object persistance framework. That lets me deal with objects rather than datasets and swap databases easily. Most of my business logic moves into the business object model (BOM) and my forms are pretty dumb. tiopf has a few ways to connect the BOM to forms; persistance aware controls, Ttidataset for data-aware controls and Mogel Gui Mediator classes for connecting to normal controls.
For small and quick apps, I just use data modules and database components. The main things to remember are:
Put as much code in the data modules (and as little in the forms) as possible.
Do multiple data modules broken down by functionality eg the email module, the income module, the invoicing module...
Test, test, test
Use VFI (visual form inheritance). Design a standart DB form. For example, empty DataSet, DataSource, a PageControl consisting of 2 sheets. First will be empty, later on you'll add edit controls to manipulate data at child forms. Add DBGrid to the second sheet. Beware, this isn't the OOP way though, but it's easy and fast.
I would take a look at Data Abstract from Remobjects.
Related
I'm currently working on a flutter application. I have a file with a big widget tree. In order to easier understand, read and maintain I wanted to "crop" the widget tree.
First what I did was to create multiple functions, which represented a bigger part of the tree such as _createFancyImage() or _createFancyContainer. After some research, I found out that such a design has some downsides (see: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/19269). So then I decided to create StatelessWidgets instead. Because of the huge size of the widget tree, I broke it down to 3 logical StatelessWidgets. Now I can use FancyImage() or FancyContainer() which represent each a standalone widget.
As a beginner, I'm not sure whether I should keep those StatelessWidgetclasses within the same file. Alternatively, I could create independent files. One thing to clarify: I'm not using those fancy widgets somewhere else. Those are unique to this one big widget tree otherwise I could have outsourced them into a new folder such as "common_widgets" or "components".
Unfortunately, I couldn't find something within the Dart and Flutter Repo style guides nor on the internet.
I appreciate every suggestion.
You can add as much classes as you need in a single file. It depends on the developer's mindset.
But, let say if one of your class can be reused by other classes or packages then you should add it to another file for better separation.
I can favour you one approach is that your each file should have maximum one Stateful widget and as many Stateless widgets as you want for that corresponding widget will be a better scenario.
Still in some cases if you feel that more than enough stateless widgets has been added in a single file you should separate it in another file based on your choice.
I prefer to keep one public widget which having the same name as the filename and remaining private widgets.
comming to your ques is How many widgets in a single file?
Its actually depend there is no such rule to restrict the limit of file. Different authors having different preference. I prefer try to keep 5-6 classes(widgets) and
each one having 5-6 functions.
Try to make a file single responsible i.e(5-6 classes together responsible for single functionality). Don't make god class which having unrelated concerns together later it will pains(haha)
If it's a common widget keep them separate to respect DRY principle(Don't repeat yourself)
If the widget is further divided into 3-4 widgets or it children widget change depend upon rest response keep seprate for good practise
Bonus Tip: try using code folding shortcuts to push a little more
We have a WPF desktop application that uses MVVM pattern and DDD (well, let's say that at least my model classes that store data named by entities taken from the real world). APP uses several microservices through REST API. And it worked perfectly. Until we thought that it's time to use some facade for back-end part to unite all those microservices and get only data that we need for particular screen.
BUT. The question is, how to make them live together.
On the one hand, we have dynamically returned data from graphql. It
means that, for example, if we have list of people on the one screen,
we will request id, name, surname and role of the person. On the
different screen for dropdown of people we will request the same data
but without role.
On the other hand we have class Person that has static set of fields Name, Surname, Role and Id, which person has in "real life"
If we use the same Person class with graphql, converting data from JSON to model Person, both screens will work fine, but behind the scene one screen that doesn't need Role wouldn't request it from graphQL. And we will have a situation when model class Person will have field Role but it will be just empty (which is i believe is kind of smells. At least I don't feel like it would be easy to maintain such a code. Developer needs to add some information to the screen, opens model, sees that Role is there, bind the field to the screen and goes to drink cofee. And then oops, there is the fields but there was no data assigned ).
Two variants I have on my mind are:
either to not use models and DDD and map data directly to ViewModel
(which personally feels like ruining everything we had before).
or we map that dynamic data to our existing models and different field for different screens (for the same class Person e.g.) will be
empty (because not requested).
Maybe somebody has already used such a combination. How do you use it and what pros and cons are?
It's a fairly common situation where you have a data layer returns many columns but only some are used in a given view.
There is no absolute "best" solution independent of how much impact the full set of columns will have on performance. Which might in turn be linked to things like caching.
You could write services that return subsets of data and then you only use the necessary bandwidth. Sort of a CQRS pattern but with maybe more models than just read + write.
Often this is unnecessary and the complications introduced do not compensate for the increased cost of maintenance.
What is often done is just to map from model to viewmodel (and back). The viewmodel that needs just 4 columns just has 4 properties and any more returned by the model are not copied. The viewmodel that needs 5 has 5 properties and they are copied from the model.
I'm new to Silverlight, but being dumped right into the fray - good way to learn I suppose :o)
Anyway, the webapp I'm working on has a relatively complex database structure that represents various object types that are linked to each other, and I was wondering 2 things:
1- What is the recommended approach when it comes to dataclasses? Have just one big dataclass, or try and separate it into several smaller dataclasses, keeping in mind they will need to reference each other?
2- If the recommended approach is to have several dataclasses, how do you define the inter-dataclasses references?
I'm asking because I did a small test. In my DB (simplified here, real model is more complex but that's not important), I have a table "Orders" and a table "Parameters". "Orders" has a foreign key on "Parameters". What I did is create 2 dataclasses.
The first one, ParamClass, were I dropped the "Parameters" table only, so I can have a nice "parameter" class. I then created a simple service to add basic SELECT and INSERT functionality.
The second one, OrdersClass, where I dropped both tables, so that the relation between the tables would automatically create a "EntityRef<parameter>" variable inside the "order" class. I then removed the "parameters" class that was automatically created in the OrdersClass dataclass, since the class has already been declared in the ParamClass dataclass. Again I created a small service to test it.
So far so good, it builds happily. The problem is that when I try to handle things on the application code, I added service references for both dataclasses, but it is not happy doing something like:
OrdersServiceReference.order myOrder = new OrdersServiceReference.order();
myOrder.parameter = new ParamServiceReference.parameter(); //<-PROBLEM IS HERE
It comlpains that it cannot implicitly convert from type 'MytestDC.ParamServiceReference.parameter' to 'MytestDC.OrdersServiceReference.parameter'
Do I somehow need to declare some sort of reference to ParamClass from OrdersClass, or how do I "convert" one to the other?
Is this even a recommended and efficient way of doing this?
Since it's a team-project, I initially wanted to separate the dataclasses so that they (and their services) can be easily checked out by one member without checking out the whole entire dataclass.
Any help appreciated!
PS: using Silverlight 4, in case that's important
Based on the widely accepted Single Responsability Principle (SRP), a class should always be responsible for one task, and one task only.
That pretty much invalidates your "one big dataclass" approach.
I would always recommend smaller, more manageable bits that can be combined, instead of one humonguous class that does everything (except brew coffee for you).
Resources for the SRP:
Wikipedia on SRP
OODesign: Single Responsibility Principle
ObjectMentor: list of articles on good app design - which has a few links to PDF documents, like this one on SRP written by Robert C. Martin - the "guru" on proper OO design
OK, some more research let me to this: it is not simple to separate classes from a relational model using LINQtoSQL. I ended up switching to an Entity Framework approach, which itself doesn't deal with it gracefully (see here and there, for example), but at least it solved another major problem I had with LINQtoSQL.
There are other ORMs out there that are apparently much more capable at this (NHibernate comes up often in recommendations), unfortunately, I don't have time to investigate them now, being under such a tight deadline.
As for the referencing, it was quite simple, change the line to:
myOrder.parameter = new OrderServiceReference.parameter();
even though I removed the declaration from that dataclass.
Hope this helps someone!
Suppose my WinForms application has a business entity Order, the entity is used in multiple views, each view handles a different domain or use-case in the application. As an example, one managing orders, the other one digging into one order and displaying additional data.
If I'd use nHibernate (or any other ORM) and use one session/dataContext per view (or per db action), I'd end up getting two different instances for the same Order (let's say orderId = 1). Although functionally the same entity, they are technically two different instances. Yes, I could implement Equals/GetHashcode to make them "seem" the same.
Why would you go for a single instance per entity vs private instances per view or per use-case?
Having single instances has the advantage of sharing INotifyPropertyChanged events, and sharing additional (non-persistent) data.
Having a private instance in each view would give you the flexibility of the undo functionality on a view level. In the example above, I'd allow the user to change order details, and give them the flexibility to not save the change. Here, synchronisation between the view/use-case happens on a data persistence level.
What would your argument be?
You should implement Equals/GetHashCode methods. This is a recommended practice when using ORMs.
In addition, you should typically stick with the "One View, One Session" mantra. Persist all of your objects when your view changes or loses focus. If you really need to share entities across views... well do it! Sometimes you must.
And once again, because when we are looking at the business objects from an entity and row type of perspective, we should not be concerned with "object" level equality.
I can't speak for ORM's, but I think you answered your own question - to an extent. You've provided pros and cons for both options: neither is right or wrong in absolute terms.
The options are only right or wrong depending on your situation. If sharing info makes sense use single-shared instance, but if the ability to undo is more important use multiple / private instances.
You might have other concerns which drive the decisions too: think about the NFR's (or "illities") and the context of the system. For example, if performance is a key concern and you know you're going to have large user bases then that might help suggest one option over the other, or force you to re-think it again from scratch.
Finally - you have "order", what about other entities - how are they being handled?
Or, if you don't have any, what will happen when/if you do? Would that have any imapct on your architecture?
I've run into reoccuring problem for which I haven't found any good examples or patterns.
I have one core service that performs all heavy datasbase operations and that sends results to different front ends (html, silverlight/flash, web services etc).
One of the service operation is "GetDocuments", which provides a list of documents based on different filter criterias. If I only had one front-end, I would like to package the result in a list of Document DTOs (Data transfer objects) that just contains the data. However, different front-ends needs different amounts of "metadata". The simples client just needs the document headline and a link reference. Other clients wants a short text snippet of the document, another one also wants a thumbnail and a third wants the name of the author. Its basically all up to the implementation of the GUI what needs to be displayed.
Whats the best way to model this:
As a lot of different DTOs (Document, DocumentWithThumbnail, DocumentWithTextSnippet)
tends to become a lot of classes
As one DTO containing all the data, where the client choose what to display
Lots of unnecessary data sent
As one DTO where certain fields are populated based on what the client requested
Tends to become a very large class that needs to be extended over time
One DTO but with some kind of generic "Metadata" field containing requested metadata.
Or are there other options?
Since I want a high performance service, I need to think about both network load and caching strategies.
Does anyone have any good patterns or practices that might help me?
What I would do is give the front end the ability to request the presence of the wanted metadata ( say getDocument( WITH_THUMBNAILS | WITH_TEXT_SNIPPET ) )
Then this DTO is built with only this requested information.
Adding all the possible metadata is as you said, unacceptable.
I will surely stay with one class defining all the possible methods (getTitle(), getThumbnail()) and if possible it will return a placeholder when the thumbnail was not requested. Something like "Image not available".
If you want to model this like a pattern, take a look at the factory patterns.
Hope this helps you.
Is there any noticable cost to creating a DTO that has all the data any of your views could need and using it everywhere? I would do that, especially since it insulates you from a requirement change down the line to have one of the views incorporate data one of the other views uses
ex. Maybe your silverlight/flash view doesn't show the title itself b/c it's in the thumb now, but they decide they want to sort by it later.
To clarify, I do not necesarily think you need to pass down all of the data every time, but I think your DTO class should define all of them. Just don't fall into the pits of premature optimization or analysis paralysis. Do the simplest thing first, then justify added complexity. Throw it all in and profile it. If the perf is unacceptable, optimize and try again.